Friday, August 29, 2014

Euro Nanny is on the warpath again, this time she has fixed her gimlet eye upon the humble vacuum cleaner; and has decreed that as from 1 September vacuums with motors in excess of 1,600 watts will be banned.

For why?

Apparently, if you believe Nanny's dodgy science, these products contribute to climate change.

Euro Nanny will require vacuum cleaners to be sold with a new system of
labels, which will show their cleaning performance and requires a minimum
level of performance.

However, these labels will be bollocks; because they are self regulating (ie the manufacturers create them and test them etc).

Once she has banned powerful suckers, Euro Nanny will also be banning high wattage hair driers and kettles.

Why not just go the whole hog, and initiate mandatory power cuts everyday?

Let's face it Euro Nanny would really love to do that, given her dictatorial ambitions!

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Oh dear, not content with trying to ban the smoking of fags indoors, Nanny (in the form of WHO) is trying to ban the use of e fags indoors as well.

For why?

WHO claims that the fumes are marginally toxic to bystanders.

Pish posh!

Short of using an e fag with a plastic bag over your head I doubt that these devices are anymore dangerous than aerosols or car fumes (sorry car fumes are way more dangerous, but WHO don't seem to be doing anything about banning cars!).

In fact, even the anti smoking lobby thinks that WHO is talking bollocks. Hazel Cheeseman, director of policy and research at Action on Smoking and
Health, in the Telegraph said there was "no evidence of any harm to bystanders from use
of these devices".

The WHO report is another example of bollocks science, used by single issue fetishists to support their political agenda.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

As loyal readers know, Nanny absolutely hates fags and does her level best to stop us smoking.

However, not all in Nanny's garden is as rosy or as clear cut as that. Ladies and Gentlemen I present HM Treasury's open consultation on Minimum Excise Tax.

In brief Nanny is worried that we are smoking less, and that when we do smoke we are smoking cheaper stuff (eg roll ups).

For why is she worried?

The less we smoke, and the cheaper we smoke, the less tax revenue she raises!

AHA!

The solution?

A minimum excise tax that would increase Nanny's profits from our smoking. The document then goes on to explain how that would work, and how much extra revenue it would generate.

Hypocrisy?

Nanny?

Never!

One amusing point though, despite the document covering all manner of fag type matters (eg roll ups and counterfeits etc), it fails to mention the effect on the market of e fags. Rather a serious omission I would say!

Anyhoo, those of you who want to help Nanny out of a financial hole should do the decent thing and start smoking 20 cigars a day; for Queen and country!

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

I was gemused, and heartened, to read that at least one of Nanny's hospitals still allows people (staff, patients and visitors etc) a degree of choice wrt what they can purchase to eat within its confines.

Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, where doctors treat
stroke and heart attack victims, has within its boundary an establishment that sells a “fry-up” pie (a pie with bacon, sausage, black
pudding and beans, with an egg on top) for £1.50.

Unsurprisingly, one of Nanny's chums (Prof Mike Lean, former government adviser, and chair of human nutrition at
Glasgow University) wants it banned because he regards it as a heart attack on a plate.

Maybe so, if one ate these pies everyday. However, as an occasional indulgence it will do no more harm than stuffing many other types of food down the gullet. Additionally, given how depressing hospitals are, the hapless patients/visitors/staff need something comforting to eat once in a while.

“It
should never be anywhere near a hospital. It is laden with fat, salt and
without a vegetable in sight. There should be strict guidelines for all food
sold in hospitals.”

It is not compulsory to buy one, and there is ample choice of fruit and low fat foods within the walls of the hospital.

We should be allowed some freedom of choice!

FYI, Professor Lean is wrong about a pie being a heart attack on a plate. The photo at the beginning of this article is of one of my Saturday night fry ups (accompanied by Red Stripe and bread and butter), that I indulge in every so often (now that's a heart attack on a plate!); I haven't keeled over yet!

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Oh dear I see that Auntie has got herself into a tizzy over tattoos and people's prejudices about them.

In a very lengthy and worthy article, Auntie asks if anti tattoo discrimination should be illegal.

In a perfect universe mankind would not have any prejudices at all, and we could all worship what we wanted, wear what we like etc.

However, in the real world like it or not people (both consciously and subconsciously) form judgements of others based on appearances, behaviour etc etc. Whilst some of these prejudices have been legislated against, it is nigh on impossible to legislate against every form of prejudice as there are simply too many of them.

Given the current state of the world, surely Auntie has more important things to fret about than tattoos?

Monday, August 18, 2014

In the bad old days of the Labour government all policies were "vetted" for their impact on children; ie Nanny wanted all departments to be child centric.

Now that we have a coalition, nothing has changed. Cameron is now calling for all government policies to pass a "family test".

Nanny Cameron is of the view that parents and children are too often overlooked and can be left worse off by reforms. As from October, every new domestic policy "will be examined for its impact on the family".

Thursday, August 14, 2014

As loyal readers know, I have written many times about Nanny's obsession with the amount of salt that we eat. In fact the very first article I published, on 18 September 2004, was about salt.

Anyhoo, moving on to 2104 and it seems that some people have finally realised that salt may in fact be not as harmful as Nanny would have us believe.

A study conducted by Dr. Salim Yusuf of McMaster University's Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ontario notes that the amount of salt most people consume is okay for heart health — and too little may be as bad as too much.

As loyal readers know, on the assumption that your kidneys are working and that you drink water the body is perfectly capable of sweating/urinating any excess salt out of the system.

Indeed, when I was a nipper I would eat large chunks of slat from a sea salt block that my mum would buy and have me grind up for the salt jar. I am in tip top condition, and haven't seen a doctor since 2000 (and that was only for a medical for a job)!

Dr Yusuf is quoted in the Mail, quite rightly noting that some people make a nice little earner from anti salt campaigning:

"There are those who have made a career out of promoting extreme sodium reduction that will attack us,' he said. It's better to focus on healthy lifestyles and overall diets instead of a single element, 'and that is something everyone can rally around."

Suffice to say Dr Yusuf's findings have been criticised by Nanny's chums within the scientific community.

The reality is, that if you are healthy and have a decent fluid intake then your body will handle it.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Nanny has got the bit between her teeth wrt health and safety again, and this time she is focused on the dangers to children of heading a football.

Dr Michael Grey, reader in Motor Neuroscience at the University of
Birmingham's School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences is of the view that children should not 'head the ball' when playing football; as it can cause brain injuries in the young, and may affect
professional players as well.

Dr Grey is quoted by the Telegraph very kindly saying he doesn't want to ban sport:

"I do not think that children should stop sport, the obesity
epidemic means we need to encourage them.
But we do need to look at rule changes and the way we train children.
Children should not be heading the ball. We don't know at what age children's
necks become strong enough to withstand the movement of the head when the
head is struck by the ball.
Some of my colleagues have suggested 14 but I really think it is individual.
In addition the brain starts to shake and rotates when the head is struck by
the ball.
The brain bounces back and forth and it is the impact of the brain against
the inside of the skull causes additional damage."

Aside from Jeff Astle West Bromwich Albion striker, who died in 2002 from a brain
disease and the coroner ruled it as 'industrial disease' suggesting his
profession had caused the damage, please could Nanny provide us with a list of those who have had brain injuries directly as a result of heading footballs?

No?

I thought not!

Disregarding the above, a report published in June by Chris Bryant MP and paralympic gold medalist and member of the
House of Lords, Baroness Grey-Thompson, entitled 'Concussion can kill'
called for a parliamentary investigation into head injuries in sport and
warned that law suits could follow.

The report asks if steps can be taken to limit the number
of times players had the ball in football, particularly youth players.

Pardon?

Are they seriously suggesting that players have their access to the ball restricted?

Monday, August 11, 2014

As a "logical" consequence to her oh so "successful" labelling of fag packets (which has resulted in the near elimination of smoking in the UK......cough) Nanny has decided to do something similar with booze.

An All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse has decreed that health warnings should be compulsory on bottles of
wine, beer and spirits to raise awareness of the dangers of excessive
drinking and the growing problem of liver disease.

Yawn!

Tracey Crouch, the chair of the group, said people should be as
aware of the dangers posed by excessive drinking as they are of the
risks associated with smoking. She is quoted in the Guardian:

"The facts and figures of the scale of
alcohol misuse in the UK speak for themselves: 1.2 million people a year
are admitted to hospital due to alcohol; liver disease in those under
30 has more than doubled over the past 10 years; and the cost of alcohol
to the economy totals £21bn. Getting political parties to seriously
commit to these 10 measures will be a massive step in tackling the huge
public health issue that alcohol is."

How detached from reality are these people?

Do they really think that a label will change the risk attitude/life style of a hardened drinker?

Whilst we are on the subject, is it not a bit rich that a group of people who have the privilege of drinking to all hours in bars subsidised by us should lecture us about our drinking habits?

Factoid: we the taxpayer subsidised Parliament's bars and restaurants to the
tune of £6 million last year.

The report
also recommends a minimum unit price on alcohol, increased regulation of marketing, a reduction in the drink drive limit and the appointment of a single minister
responsible for reducing "alcohol harms".

FFS!

Do we not already have a health minister, why the fark do we need one for booze as well?

Shall we also have ministers for fags, drugs, obesity etc etc?

Pardon my French, but I am sick to death of these farkers in Parliament dictating to us about how we should live our lives!

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Unsurprisingly, given that Nanny and her minions from the Met Office have been shrilly warning us about the dangers of hurricane Bertha, the reality of Bertha is that it is nothing more than a wee bit of rain and some gusts of wind.

A complete and utter damp squid!

Ironically, in Brighton, the 999 Fun Day (wherein the emergency services show people what they do) has been cancelled because there were concerns about people's safety.

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

In a move of utter knobheadery Nanny, in the form of Dr Ben Pitcher, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of
Westminster, has declared BBC Radio 4's long running Gardeners' Question Time to be racist.

Pardon?

According to Pitcher the show is riddled with
"racial meanings" disguised as horticultural advice. It seems that discussions about soil purity and
non-native species are thinly disguised attempts to stir nationalist and fascist beliefs.

“Customers were complaining that the outside
of the restaurant was becoming an al fresco smoking lounge so we’ve
created a place where people can eat and drink in a smoke free
environment.

During the fine weather people want to go outside
but many were turned off by the huddle of smokers. It’s already proving
extremely popular and we’re delighted to receive the very first Fresh
Air award.”

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive